I cover the video game industry, write about gamers, and review video games.
You can follow me on Twitter and hit me up there if you have any questions or comments you'd like to chat about.
Disclosure: Many of the video games I review were provided as free review copies. This does not influence my coverage or reviews of these games.
I do not own stock in any of the companies I cover. I do not back any Kickstarter projects related to video games. I do not fund anyone in the industry on Patreon.

Gaming The System: How A Gaming Journalist Lost His Job Over A Negative Review

Over at Kotaku, Luke Plunkett has an interesting post up on the sort of conflict of interest some gaming journalists and websites face when penning honest reviews of video games.

To briefly summarize, long, long ago in a galaxy far away (called simply The Year of Our Lord 2007) a writer at GameSpot, Jeff Gerstmann, was fired. This came closely on the heels of his negative review of Kane & Lynch. Rumors that the publisher had applied pressure on GameSpot to get rid of Gerstmann ran rampant, and, it turns out, were all (mostly) true.

Though the publisher may not have actually applied the pressure, it turns out higher-ups at GameSpot were none too pleased with Gerstmann when Sony threatened to pull advertising over the review.

“As part of a recent deal that’s seen Gerstmann’s current employer Giant Bomb purchased by CBS Interactive (who also own GameSpot, his former employer), some full disclosure was needed from both parties as to what, exactly, went down that day five years ago,” Plunkett writes.

“So disclose Gerstmann has, confirming with GameSpot’s Jon Davison that after a succession of challenges with management and advertisers he was “called into a room” and “terminated” because he “couldn’t be trusted” as editorial director (ie, in charge of reviews), kicking off one of the saddest and sorriest episodes in an often sad and sorry relationship between games writers and games publishers.”

Sad indeed, and revelatory, too. As perhaps the most blatant possible way to illustrate a conflict of interest between gaming sites and publishers, terminating someone who gives a game a bad review isn’t just a terrible idea, it’s an ethical failure so poignant and grotesque that, as Plunkett says, one has a difficult time getting that bitter taste off the tongue just reading about it five years later.

I’ve been talking a lot lately about building trust between brands and audiences, and the importance of maintaining consumer trust for game developers. The ongoing Mass Effect saga is a lovely vehicle for this discussion. But a larger problem exists within gaming journalism, and certainly the GameSpot affair illustrates this in gritty detail.

While I’m still only digging into the details here, other instances of games and access being withheld to sites that hand out negative reviews have been reported.

Often the most pernicious form conflict of interest takes is the kind that bubbles about just below the surface, barely visible even to its participants. Sometimes all it takes is an amicable relationship between a game publisher and a journalism outfit. The fear of stepping on the toes of those you like and admire can be as debilitating as the fear of biting the hand that feeds you.

I’ve seen this same thing in political journalism. Real hard-hitting journalism is often discouraged by closing off access to journalists who won’t accept the official line. That access is precious, but often as not journalists don’t even think of it that way. They build friendships with the subjects of their reporting.

Glenn Greenwald has described these insider journalists as “desperate worshipers of political power who are far more eager to be part of it and to serve it than to act as adversarial checks against it” who are “Royal Court Spokespeople regardless of which monarch is ruling.”

Trust is formed between the reporter and the subject, but that trust can come at a cost.

When this conflict of interest shatters the far more important trust that ought to exist between journalist and audience, well then Houston, we have a problem.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

There were two very interesting Interviews regarding these issues lately with CEO of Larian Studios over at Neoseeker, Part One is called “Games Journalism is Broken”: http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Games/Interviews/larian_studios_pt1/ , Part Two is called “The Developer-Publisher Model” and goes more into the details of that: http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Games/Interviews/larian_studios_pt2/2.html But especially the first part was a very interesting read.

There is also a 10 minutes YouTube video that analyzes the issue somewhat and goes back over some of the “incidents” in context of Mass Effect 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwD2GgWKIrs It’s also where I stumbled over this Editorial by an Editor-in-Chief of 1Up complaining about the state of the industry, although it is also somewhat old it also makes specific claims.

I don’t think that gaming journalism is very professional. My perception is that it is mainly young men who grew up fans of the medium. Many harbour aspirations to be game developers or to be otherwise involved in a medium they love. They are in awe of the big name studios and their producers.

Frequently they are given gifts of game equipment, copies of games or other small gifts. At gaming conventions they are wined and dined at parties where the game publishers hire models to titilate young men’s attention and to make them feel important. The one thing these journalists fear is being cut off from this.

The payola is so rampant that in Mass Effect, EA/Bioware hired Jessica Chobot for a speaking role in the game. Here voice over performance is regarded as the worst of any character in the trilogy. As an objective observer, I would think this might have something to do with IGN’s perfect review or its fervent defense of Bioware’s ‘artistic integrity’ against ‘entitled’ fans.

The question is why isn’t the internet required to disclose payola like radio or television. Doesn’t the kid who worked Saturday to get 60 bucks to buy a game deserve an objective review before buying a game on launch day?

Prior to all this mess with Mass Effect 3 I wouldn’t have paid an article like this much mind. A few bad apples, sure where aren’t there some? Now though, seeing the mess with ME3 and the gaming journalists response to it, I have to wonder. Like you said, it may not even be an explicit EA is pressuring them thing, it might be just they’ve gotten too deep in with the companies and have lost touch with their average everyday customers. The derision from the gaming journalists has just blown my mind more so then Bioware’s poor ending to ME3.

The unhealthy and customer-unfriendly intimacy between game publishers and game journalists is in desperate need of a violent shakedown. It’s good to see you take it on.

As it is, most big-name gaming press outlets are just PR proxies for big publishers. There’s no integrity, no critique – just endless tailwagging and perfunctory 7 to 10 review scores in exchange for ad revenue, exclusive “scoops” and access to preview events.

Customer trust in the press’ ability to apply checks and balances to the industry is completely eroded, and stuff like Amazon rating and metacritic bombing is a very clear symptom of that. There’s really no other outlet where dissatisfaction resounds anywhere near the boardrooms.

I’m not familiar with GameSpot but I’ve read enough stuff over the years about Sony to not ever think it was a moral company. Remember their DRM rootkit. Or the latest playstation network break in and their tepid coverup/response?